Re: Boost 1.25.0 build problems?

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-10-04 14:35:51

--- In boost_at_y..., Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_a...> wrote:
> At 03:06 PM 10/4/2001, Peter Dimov wrote:
> 
>  >From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_a...>
>  >> My reading of the rules is that if a standard library header 
requires a
>  >> definition of a type (presumably because it needs a complete 
type), the
>  >> appropriate standard library header has to be included by the
>  >> implementation.  But if only a declaration is required (because 
the 
> usage
>  >> is such an incomplete type is OK), the full header doesn't have 
to be
>  >> included.
>  >
>  >I think that the rules are even stricter than that. When a 
standard 
> header
>  >uses  std::string (as a complete type), for example, this most 
probably
>  >means that std::string has been defined (although I don't think 
that even
>  >that is guaranteed. ;-) )
>  >
>  >However this doesn't mean that <string> has been included, or 
that the
>  >definitions of the templated std::string members are visible.
> 
> I'm basic my reading on the footnote for 17.4.4.1 paragraph 1, 
which says 
> "C++ headers must include a C++ header that contains any needed 
definition 
> (3.2)."
> 
>  >Mostly academic, of course.
> 
> Yes. For users, the rule is simple: If you use a name from the 
standard 
> library, always include a standard library header documented as 
providing 
> that name. Never assume some other standard library header will 
include it 
> for you.

There's the rub, though.  I never used "a name from the standard 
library" for which I did not "include a standard library header 
documented as providing that name".  The issue actually stems from 
calling the constructors with const char* parameters which need to be 
implicitly cast to the const std::string& type.  So I guess you could 
turn this around and claim that the standard has a defect in design, 
but I don't care to go that far.  I honestly think this is a QoI 
issue with STLPort.

Bill Kempf